Savannah courier. (Savannah, Tenn.) 1885-1979, 1887-10-13
was familiarly known, still more when
a l..,..l.. Il ...on

we got outside the limits OF well-ascer-
tanned scientific conclusions, and en-
tered region at q still debatable
ground, when men of science were at
tempting to push forward, and were
framing hypothesis with view to the
ultimate establishment of theory in
case those hypothesis should stand the
test of thorough examination, a man
such as he had supposed might feel as
if the scientists, who were attempting
to explore it, were treading on holy
ground; and he might mentally charge
them with irreverence, perhaps he
might openly speak of them in a man
ner which implied that he attributed to
them an intention of opposing revealed
religion.
The primary object of the establish
ment of the Institute was to examine
questions as to which there was
prima facte appearance of conflict be-
tween the conclusions Of science and tho
teachings of religion. Scientific in
vestigation was eminently truthful.
The Investigator might be wrong, but
it did not follow that he was other than
truth-loving. If on some subjects
which we deemed of the highest i'm
portance he did not agree with us, let
us, remembering our own imperfec-
tions both of understanding and of
practice, bear in mind that caution of
the apostle: "Who art thou that judg-
est another mans servantp To his own
master he standeth or falleth."
The following remarks may also be
quoted here: The Institute fully rec
ognized that between science, rightly
understood, and revelation, rightly
understood, there was no opposition;
if an apparent discrepancy should
arise, we had no right, on principle, to
exclude either in favor of the other;
for however firmly convinced we
might be of the truth of Revelation,
we must admit our liability to err as
to the extent or Interpretation Of what
is revealed; and however strong the
scientific evidence in favor of u theory
might be, we must admit that we are
dealing with evidence which in its nat
ure is probable only, and it lis conceiv-
able that wider scientific knowledge
might lead us to alter our opin-
ion. Again, it was impossible for the
bulk of our populations to weigh the
evidence of what are stated to be the
conclusions of science, they take them
OH trust; and if scientific conjectures
are represented to them as the con-
clusions of science they are predis-
posed, knowing what science has done,
to accept them as true. 1t is quite
possible stumbling-block might thus
be placed in the way of religious be-
lief. for though the fundamental idea
of the unity of truth involved, as an
axiom, the absence of an antagonism
between true science and revelation,
yet we had no such guarantee re-
specting scientific conjecture. Al
dangers arose from separation OF
science from revelation, and an ignor
ing of one of the two modes of arriv'
ing at truth, these dangers were best
guarded against by recognizing botl
as coming, in different ways, from the
Author of our being.
The. President thanked the members
and referred to the special Importance
of the papers read during this year
The following are two of the severa
papers instanced by him. Prof
Hughes paper, giving an account o
his cave explorations and discoveries
including, among many others, care
full and critical examination Of thu
| lnuci,-taiked-of remains Of primitive
man at Mentone; he had found tina
tho body must have been inferred
decked with ornaments, for there wer'
still many indications of these. An
other important paper contained
thorough and exhaustive inquiry int
the alleged connection of Christianit,
with the story of Krishna In this tn
Institute has been aided by all tn
leading students in England able II
deal with the matter, including Prof
Max Muller, Sir Monier Williams, ant
many others; and the result has beel
to thoroughly prove that the real stu
dent of history had found no connec
ton between Krishna and Christian
; ity, and that all statements to the con
trary were erroneous.